Welcome To The FECC Forum - More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Off Topic Messages

Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:17 am

Oh we can say....but the problem is that crap is repeated so much that it somehow becomes gospel.

Now about this innocent civilian crap. GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Gee did they not know a war a was going on?

The UN..what is their purpose in all this anway. Funny how they are quick to criticize, but slow when it comes to ACTION!

Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:23 am

One more time...lol

Genesim, the state of Israel was founded on terrorist acts. Thousands of them. An elderly friend of my parents served in the Palestine police (who were recruited to keep the Arabs and Jews apart) right up to the time the British withdrew from Palestine in 1947.

Ever hear of the Arab village of Deir Yassin, where 250 men, women and children were massacred in 1948 by a Jewish terrorist group led by the future Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin? Or the Stern Gang, who under the leadership of future Israeli prime minister Yitzak Shamir, assassinated the UN representative in Palestine, as it was then called. Or Jewish terrorist Moshe Dayan, who rounded up the residents of the Arab village of al-Dawazyma, murdered 100, then locked up the rest in their houses before setting them alight? Or the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was blown sky high by Begin's group along with 97 British civil servants?

Ancient history now, but proof that neither side is the innocent party in this conflict - jmo.

Thanks for the articles by the way Greg.

Last edited by Gillybee on Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:23 am

genesim wrote:Now about this innocent civilian crap. GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Gee did they not know a war a was going on?

Oh, it's their fault now, is it ?

Just read your words again and think about it.

Do you seriously mean that ?

What about the Lebanese who were ordered to evacuate their town, and did so, only for their convoy of cars to be strafed with many dying ?

Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:20 pm

Never said Isreal was "innocent". Matter of fact, no country is. BUT there is no doubt about the status of theirs...and our enemy. I am rooting for them all the way.

As for the UN and civilians, didn't say it was their fault. Still doesn't change the fact that they should get out of the way. Evacuating doesn't mean stand in the line of fire. One must use judgement.

Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:09 am

Gillybee wrote:One more time...lol

Genesim, the state of Israel was founded on terrorist acts. Thousands of them. An elderly friend of my parents served in the Palestine police (who were recruited to keep the Arabs and Jews apart) right up to the time the British withdrew from Palestine in 1947.

Ever hear of the Arab village of Deir Yassin, where 250 men, women and children were massacred in 1948 by a Jewish terrorist group led by the future Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin? Or the Stern Gang, who under the leadership of future Israeli prime minister Yitzak Shamir, assassinated the UN representative in Palestine, as it was then called. Or Jewish terrorist Moshe Dayan, who rounded up the residents of the Arab village of al-Dawazyma, murdered 100, then locked up the rest in their houses before setting them alight? Or the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was blown sky high by Begin's group along with 97 British civil servants?

Ancient history now, but proof that neither side is the innocent party in this conflict - jmo.

Thanks for the articles by the way Greg.

All true Gilly.........but you neglected to mention that the British, whom the terrorist acts were perpetrated against, were arming the Palestinians themselves before their pullout, as well as letting the Palestinians get arms from outside. They were also turning over strategic military strongholds over to the Palestinians.

They denied the Jews the same treatment. In other words, the Brits were setting the Jews up for slaughter at the hands of the Palestinians and the Arab armies.

Context, my dear..........context.

And Colin, that proportional response nonsense really rich.........let's just say that the soldier incident set the table. The response by Israel takes into account the bombings and shootings of buses, trains, pizza parlors, kibbutzim, settlements, synagogues, military checkpoints, patrolmen, Rabbis, teachers, children,etc etc etc.

Not by the women, children, and UN observers who are being killed in the retalliation.

True......and the terrorists are the ones using the women, and children, and other innocents as shields like cowards.

They perpetrate atrocity after atrocity, and Israel is supposed to sit on its hands because the terrorists hide behind skirts and playgrounds. So the atrocities go on and on..........

The Israeli Army does all that is humanly possible.........including putting thier soldiers lives, their military objectives, and their citizenry in harm's way.........to minimize the loss of innocent life.

But, as I've said before, the terrorists are the ones using innocents despicably as shields. The blood is on THEIR hands. The status quo cannot continue.

Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:26 pm

Scatter wrote:All true Gilly.........but you neglected to mention that the British, whom the terrorist acts were perpetrated against, were arming the Palestinians themselves before their pullout, as well as letting the Palestinians get arms from outside. They were also turning over strategic military strongholds over to the Palestinians.

They denied the Jews the same treatment. In other words, the Brits were setting the Jews up for slaughter at the hands of the Palestinians and the Arab armies.

Context, my dear..........context.

But Scatter, who do you think were arming the Zionists? Immigrant ships were regularly intercepted with caches of arms which were funded primarily by sympathetic interests in the US, much the same way as the IRA later received large sums of money from NORAID.

There was certainly no love lost between the British and the Zionists by 1947 because of the terrorist acts committed by the Zionists due to the restrictions the British had imposed on Jewish immigration in 1939.

The reason the limitations were imposed was because the British knew that if too many Jews arrived in Palestine too quickly, it would inflame an already volatile and unstable situation with the Arabs and provoke a bloodbath. At the same time the US was also turning away boatloads of refugees. It was just tragic that at the same time the Holocaust was under way.

Anyway, what I really wanted to get across was that in todays world of "breaking news" 24 hour news channels, there's no depth or context to the reporting and events as crucial as this one are reduced to simplistic "good guys" and "bad guys" scenarios. I'm not implying that you see things that way, but a lot of people do and that's scary!

Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:47 pm

Gillybee wrote:

Scatter wrote:All true Gilly.........but you neglected to mention that the British, whom the terrorist acts were perpetrated against, were arming the Palestinians themselves before their pullout, as well as letting the Palestinians get arms from outside. They were also turning over strategic military strongholds over to the Palestinians.

They denied the Jews the same treatment. In other words, the Brits were setting the Jews up for slaughter at the hands of the Palestinians and the Arab armies.

Context, my dear..........context.

But Scatter, who do you think were arming the Zionists? Immigrant ships were regularly intercepted with caches of arms which were funded primarily by sympathetic interests in the US, much the same way as the IRA later received large sums of money from NORAID.

Yes........in response to the Arab threat and the British zeal to see the Palestinians prevail.

There was certainly no love lost between the British and the Zionists by 1947 because of the terrorist acts committed by the Zionists due to the restrictions the British had imposed on Jewish immigration in 1939.

The reason the limitations were imposed was because the British knew that if too many Jews arrived in Palestine too quickly, it would inflame an already volatile and unstable situation with the Arabs and provoke a bloodbath.

If their desire was to prevent a bloodbath, perhaps it would have been a wiser course to stop arming the Arab populace, facilitating the arms shipments from outside sources, and turning over military installations all while doing all possible to put Jews in an inextricable disadvantage in populace and arms.

At the same time the US was also turning away boatloads of refugees. It was just tragic that at the same time the Holocaust was under way.

That was indeed tragic.........

Anyway, what I really wanted to get across was that in todays world of "breaking news" 24 hour news channels, there's no depth or context to the reporting and events as crucial as this one are reduced to simplistic "good guys" and "bad guys" scenarios. I'm not implying that you see things that way, but a lot of people do and that's scary!

The fact remains that the "Palestinians" are little more than a political football for the Arab extremists. The Israelis have sought to live in peace, and have made concession after concession to facilitate that outcome.

Land, money, citizenship, Knesset seats............and every concession has been met with lies, bombs, and bullets.

As I said.........the status quo has to end, and it may as well be right now.Perhaps it may seem good guy/bad guy............then again, perhaps it seems that way for a reason.

Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:20 pm

What did the British have to gain by having the Palestinians prevail? After all it was one of their own, Balfour, who declared the Jews should have a homeland in Palestine in the first place. The fact was they found themselves the meat in the sandwich and were targeted by both sides.

I know for a fact that the old man who I spoke of earlier who served in the Palestine police prior to 1948 couldn't stand the Arabs OR the Zionists and his view was widely shared among the other British recruits at the time - so he tells me.

If Israel was serious about a lasting peaceful solution, it would negotiate the status of Jerusalem. Their total refusal to do so is an indication to me that their attitude is as inflexible and uncompromising as it was 60 years ago.

Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:43 pm

Gillybee wrote:What did the British have to gain by having the Palestinians prevail? After all it was one of their own, Balfour, who declared the Jews should have a homeland in Palestine in the first place. The fact was they found themselves the meat in the sandwich and were targeted by both sides.

That was a long time ago, and Parliament had a very influential bloc that had indeed picked sides. The hostilities between the Brits and the Jews had caused quite a bit of rancor with the Brits back home and especially with those with boots on the ground in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was a Looooooong time ago.......1917. A lifetime ago, and much had changed.

I know for a fact that the old man who I spoke of earlier who served in the Palestine police prior to 1948 couldn't stand the Arabs OR the Zionists and his view was widely shared among the other British recruits at the time - so he tells me.

Agreed that many felt that way...........but the actions of his superiors tell a different story. The proof of it is in the actions taken.......and not taken.......which benefitted the Arabs at the expense of the Jews. Sides had indeed been picked, and at the very top of the Gov't as well as on the ground.

If Israel was serious about a lasting peaceful solution, it would negotiate the status of Jerusalem. Their total refusal to do so is an indication to me that their attitude is as inflexible and uncompromising as it was 60 years ago.

Let the Beast into the belly of Israeli democracy when all they've received for the multitude of concessions since Oslo has been bullets, bombs, and bloodshed?? You can't be serious.........

How about this.........if the Palestinians were serious about peace, their so-called police forces would root out and eliminate the terrorists as they PROMISED TO DO IN OSLO A DECADE AGO.

Another in an unrelenting queue of broken promises.........what makes anyone think that internationalizing Jerusalem will suddenly cease the terrorist attacks when the huge land concessions already implemented have only served to prove the Arab leadership has no such intention???

Let them keep the promises they've already made before putting that scimitar so close to the heart of the Jewish nation, shall we??

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:50 am

The worst thing that happened after WW2 was that Israel got nuclear weapons!

BTW, why on earth are Maurice´s posts on this subject all deleted?? Isn´t there such a thing as freedom of speach on this forum??

Why is that?? So they could be driven into the Mediterranean, as has been the stated goal of the Arab hordes in the region??

Careful MB..........your post walks a fine line between political preference and anti-Semitism.

BTW, why on earth are Maurice´s posts on this subject all deleted?? Isn´t there such a thing as freedom of speach on this forum??

As for freedom of speech, on this forum (as everywhere else on the planet) freedom of speech is a privilege granted within guidlines. The administrators must feel he violated those guidelines.

Remember, this forum isn't a Constitutional Republic. It's a benevolent dictatorship. Their forum, their rules. The door is always an option for those who cannot discern the difference.

Sincerely MB280E

Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:21 pm

[quote="Scatter Careful MB..........your post walks a fine line between political preference and anti-Semitism.[/color]

And that´s probably the easiest thing in the world to throw in the face of anyone who dares speak their minds against the wrongdoings of the state of Israel...or should we call it the 51st state of America?? Oops, there you go, now I´m probably a Hitler-scholar and a nazi, too... as well as a communist or an enemy of the US!?! So easy...

Sincerely MB280E

Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:44 pm

Then pray tell MB, what EXACTLY did you mean when you stated that you regret Israel ever obtained the Bomb, especially when considering that if they had not obtained this technology the Arab hordes would have achieved their goal of destroying the Jewish nation by now??

What, perchance, were we supposed to conclude from your remarks considering the history of the conflict and the oft-stated goal of the Arab countries around Israel to "drive Israel into the Mediterranean" (who outnumber the Jews by a ratio of 10 to 1 BTW)??

There are only two conclusions.........either you wish Israel had never gotten nuclear technology so that they would have been vulnerable to destruction (anti-Semitism), OR you are woefully ignorant of the history of the region (in which case you have little to add here).

Since there are only two options available that I can imagine, and you seem to claim you are not anti-Semitic, I will stipulate your ignorance.........if that suits you better.

I await whatever third option you may present........

Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:48 pm

I meant EXACTLY what I wrote! If that to you means that I am an anti-semitic so be it. In that case we have nothing more to say to eachother.

Sincerely MB280E

Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:01 am

Not necessarily.........I never said you were an anti-Semite, did I???

Read it again............I said your post and your statement about Israel walks a fine line considering that nuclear technology has been the only deterrent to the Arabs destroying the Jewish Nation.

I also note the complete absense of any mention of the Arab atrocities and crimes perpetrated against Israel, while you note the supposed crimes Israel has perpetrated while trying to fend off its destruction. How odd.

There's that fine line again.............

If you are not anti-Semitic,and you are not simply ignorant of the history of the conflict, please explain the context of the statements you have made thus far..............

I give you the benefit of the doubt. But the third option which would explain your statements (without rendering you a bigot or someone who has no knowledge of the situation) is absent so far.

Now you have me curious............

Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:38 am

No normal person will ever defend atrocities done by any people or nation. And as I just said, I will never speak to or discuss any subject with you again!

Sincerely MB280E

Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:47 am

"Thou dost protest too much.........."

It's a quote by some obscure writer.............Shakespeare. I think his first name was Billy or something.

Feigning offense.........not exactly a novel maneuver.

This is a typical dodge used to avoid answering a question that cannot be answered without leaving the respondent looking foolish.

I'll miss you.......

Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:33 pm

The daily reports of children being killed are getting too much for even Bush to stomach now.

Dr Rice has announced a 48-hour cease-fire [for civilians] is operative.

For the Israelis this has been a PR disaster.

For the Lebanese, it's been just a disaster.

On a lighter note, there is even an Elvis connection !

A US plane carrying equipment to Israel yesterday, was due to refuel at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport, but was diverted to a military one.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:46 pm

ColinB and myself havent seen eye-to-eye regarding politics but i totally agree with everything he has said about the current situation in the Middle East.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:38 pm

I say GOOD! Killing every man, woman, and child that are in some way responsible for housing terrorists is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Incidently, why is Colin a Hezbolah sympathizer?? Why is it that he only posts a cartoon that is against Isreal??

Are there not missles being launched into their country? Does he think that if the shoe were not on the other foot it would be that way and WORSE???

This is WAR people, not tiddly winks!!!! If they use unproportional force with a bunch of terrorists....GOOD! I hope they do, because it is about time these punks learn, and learn well, that you cannot go attacking a country unprovoked without reprocussions for the actions.

The United States was attacked by terrorists, but did those organizations care about the innocents that were killed?

Colin would feel drastically different if missles were sailed into their category, but of course, until that happens, everyone else is wrong for defending themselves.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:41 pm

Isnt Israel a terrorist State??

This situation in the Middle East didnt start 4 weeks ago but decades ago when Israel invaded Lebanon and took 100s of innocent men as hostages which they wont release.

I was amazed to read that Iran are condemned for sending long-range missiles to Lebanon.Where did the Israelis get their missles from?

Its ok for the US to give weapons, nuclear weapons as well, to Israel but its not ok for Iran to send weapons to Lebanon to defend their country.

Nearly 90% of those that have been killed in Lebanon have been civilians but it seems that everyone has to be shocked by the much smaller death toll on the Israelis side.

The media and the western world want you to think that an Israeli life is much more valuble than a Lebanese or Palestinian life.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:52 pm

I agree 100% Sean!

Sincerely MB280E

Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:27 am

Sean Ryan wrote:Isnt Israel a terrorist State??

This situation in the Middle East didnt start 4 weeks ago but decades ago when Israel invaded Lebanon and took 100s of innocent men as hostages which they wont release.

Hmmmmmm........and that was just for fun, right?? Not because Lebanon had willingly given itself over as a base of operations for the terrorists to target Israel, right?? Not because murders and bombings were launched from there on a nearly daily basis against Israeli civilians. Noooooooo. Just because.........

I was amazed to read that Iran are condemned for sending long-range missiles to Lebanon.Where did the Israelis get their missles from?

Its ok for the US to give weapons, nuclear weapons as well, to Israel but its not ok for Iran to send weapons to Lebanon to defend their country.

Lebanon signed an agreement over 10 years ago stating that they would not tolerate any armed group operating within its borders that was not part of the police/military complex. The fact that they broke that treaty and allowed the same terrorists who caused the last Israeli incursion to operate in their country again is the cause of this problem.

The ignorance of history here is appalling........

Nearly 90% of those that have been killed in Lebanon have been civilians but it seems that everyone has to be shocked by the much smaller death toll on the Israelis side.

The Hezbollah are purposely using civilians as shields........many are willing shields. But you blame Israel..........not the ones who put civilians in harm's way. Israel gives notice of attacks to the harm of its own soldiers, but that's not enough. Hezbollah herds people into targeted structures, hides itself in hospitals and homes, and prevents the innocent from fleeing, yet this is Israels' fault?? Charming......

Goodness Sean........you're absolutely clueless. I'll never understand the compunction here to comment upon events when there is no knowledge to make the posts intelligible. .

The media and the western world want you to think that an Israeli life is much more valuble than a Lebanese or Palestinian life.

Really?? Please point us all to the overwhelmingly pro-Israeli media bias. It's quite the opposite. But I can see reality hasn't stood in your way so far......